Come on out and say it, the only current 'translation' is the New World Translation and that has been refuted over and over again. You will not find a 'godlike spirit person' ANYWHERE in the Greek.
John 20:28 - The above could have been the reason Jesus was addressed as "my God" by Thomas.
Again, you are offering a scripted argument. Context, context, context FOE. Jesus rebuked many others for false worship during His earthly ministry - He was a Jew - and a monotheist. There is no hint of rebuke to Thomas for the worship. Re:vs. 30, the TITLE - Son of God - is synonymous with God the Son.
As for Phil 2:6-11, what is meant at verse 5,
You need to expand the CONTEXT further FOE - go back and read verses 1-4, they set up vs 5. He sets before them a most perfect example of all modesty and sweet conduct, Christ Jesus, whom we ought to follow with all our might: who abased himself so much for our sakes, although he is above all, that he took upon himself the form of a servant, that is, our flesh, willingly subject to all weaknesses, even to the death of the cross.(Geneva)
The Expositor's Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa′zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon′] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’.
Come on FOE, canned arguments still. Are you ashamed of your sources? You question comes verbatum from Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication, John 10:30; p 416-423). Please, if you are going to cite EGT, please include the full text. Here's what you left out -
Ver. 6. The discussions as to whether this refers to the pre-existing or historical Christ seem scarcely relevant to Paul's thought. For him his Lord's career was one and undivided. To suggest that he did not conceive a preexistence in heaven is to ignore the very foundations of his thinking. Probably he never speculated minutely on the nature of Christ's pre-existent state, just as he refrains from doing so on the nature of the future life. He contents himself with general lines. The interpretation of the passage depends on the meaning assigned to (2) denotes the form, appearance, look or likeness of soifie-one, that by which those beno ding him would indulge him. See job iv. 16, Dan. v. 6 an three other places, Wisd. xviii. 1, 4 Macc. xv. 4. Plainly, from the context of these passages, the word had come, in later Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning, far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belotiged to it in writers like Plato and Aristotle. It seems, therefore, to us of little value, %vith Lft. and Gifford (ot. cit.), to discuss the relation of to terms such as Otg-(&, +40'Ls and ti8os in their philosophical refinements. It is far more Probable that Paul uses ilop+. here in a loose, popular sense, as we use I nature ' " (Guardian, Jan. 1, 1896). He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For IL. always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it. But in trying to reach a conception of the pre-existing nature of his Lord, he is content to think of Him as the ELK4)V -rofo e'00 (COI- i- 15), as sharing in that 86tcL (on the close relation of tL. and 86tcL see Nestle, SK., 1893, PP- 173, j74) which is the manifestation of the Divine nature (cf. John xvii- 5, Heb. i- 3), as possessing, that is to say, the same kind of existence as God possesses, without indulging in speculations on the metaphysical relationship of the Son to the father. So in 2 Cor. viii. 9 (the closest parallel in thought to this) he describes the same condition by the words wkov'o-tos wv. And this reminds us of the point of emphasis, the unspeakable contrast between the heavenly and earthly states the p. E)eoi and the it. 8o4,\ov. The Apostle's mind is overpowered by the profound ethical meaning and value of the Humiliation. -,&w4pXwv. Probably = " being constitutionally " (Evans on i Cor. xi. 7), ,being by nature ". Cf. Liturgy of S. _7ames (Hariimond, Litt., P. 45, quoted by Giff.), irCLLBLOV YKYOVIEV 6 7rPactt,;vwv,~wC'Lpxwvecasilk&v. At the same time, in later Greek, it is often a mere copula. Cf. Gildersleeve on Justin M-,:APOI.,i.,2. This participle represents the imperfect as well as the present tense. So probably here. ApircLyIL6v. In the absence of relevant evidence for this word, its precise significance must largely be determined by the context. Accordingly it must be discussed in close connection with T'o eiv. ~tua e. It Did not consider ra c. L. e. as an &p7rcLyIL6s.11 What is the relation of ra c. t. e. to fLop(H ? The words mean "the being on an equality with God " (R.V.). It is surely needless to make any fine distinctions here, as giff. does (Op. Cit., P. 242), between elvat twos as = equality of nature and elvclt torel as pointing to 11 the state and circumstances which are separable from the essence and therefore variable or accidental," or, with Lft., to say that twos would refer to the person. while lacl has in view the attributes. As a matter of fact the adverb l~we (neuter plural) is use.& in the most general sense, without any metaphysical subtleties, e.g., job. xi. 12, IvOpwiras 81 ilkxws viXtrCLL \6yoLS Ppo,r6s 8a ytvv-qr6s YVVCLLR~S 'Laft SV(p apliFL(TV; xxx. 19, iy-qwclk 86' FLe torcl Vn ~, IV Yi K&I WWO4 FLOV i ILEP(S. Cf. Thuc., iii., 14, two KCLI LKITCLL l(r iv; S h., Oed. R., 1188, 16AaS TWCL K,.r r6 709a t4ocLs 4vcLp OlLre, and elsewhere.
Thus no theological speculations can be based upon the word. Is r6 c. L. e. equivalent to lv IL. in spite of some Comm. there is absolutely nothing in the text to justify, the supposition. Plainly &Lop4~i has reference to nature . r6 4EIvcLL twcl Ge~ to a relation. In fact it is only a particular rendering of ApwcLyIL69 which suggested their equivalence. A more important question is Whether r6 c. L. e. was possessed by Christ in virtue of His being ly FLop. Gio~D. This will depend on the sense of &p*cL-yIL69. It is generally admitted now that &p7rcLyIL6s may be regarded as = ip7rcLylLcL. (See esp. Zahn, Luthardt's Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 244-249-) Cf. OemiLds, lit. = "the laying down," 46 ordaining " of a thing, which comes to mean "the thing laid down," the ordinance or statute; LXCLWFLds, lit. =a propitiating, appeasing, but usuallythe propitiatory offering, that by which propitiation is made (see Hatz., Einl., p. 18o). Myr., Hfm., Beet and others wish to keep the active meaning, and translate, " Did not consider the being on an equality with God as a means of robbing". But it seems impossible to acc-e-pt this sense when we have no hint of what is to be robbed. Lft., Hpt., Vinc. and others, regarding &ptrayix6s as = ip-irclylta, translate, "Did not look upon His equality with God as a prize to be clutched". That is to say, r'o c. E. 0. is something which He already possessed and resolved not to cling to. But will ApwaylA6s admit of this meaning? We cannot find any passage where Aprr4itw or any of its derivatives has the sense of "holding in possession," "retaining ". It seems invariably to mean "seize," "snatch violently ". Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense "grasp at " into one which is totally different, "hold fast ". Are we not obliged, then, to think of the &p7rQyl46s QpireLylLcL) as something still future, a res rafiienda? Cf. Catena on Mark X. 41 ff(quoted by Zahn), Jesus' answer to the sons of Zebedee, obic lo-rlv &pwayIL6s i 'rLILi, ,the honour is not one to be snatched ". Observe how aptly this view fits the context. In ver. iio, which is the climax of the whole passage, we read that God gave Jesus Christ as a gift (lXcLpi. o-cL,ro) the name above every name, i.e., the name (including position, dignity and authority) of Kv'pLos, Lord, the name which represents the O.T. Jehovah. But this is the highest place Christ has reached. He has always (in Paul's view) shared in the Divine nature (A. ecoz). But it is only as the result of His Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped. This position of K16PLOS is the reward and crowning-point of the whole process of His voluntary Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that ,rckeiwwts of which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks. This perfection " He acquired as He successively seized the occasions which His vocation as author of salvation presented to Him, a process moving on the lines of His relations to mortal, sinful men " (Davidson, Hebrews, P. 208). Along the same lines He was raised to the dignity of Kv'PLOS, which is a relation to mankind. (See on the rela. tion of Christ as KV'PLOS to God, Somerville, op. cit., pp. 140-142.) This equality with God, therefore, consists in the KUPL6"s, the Lordship to which He has been exalted. " He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized, violently snatched." Cf. Hetiodor., Ethiofi., vii., 2of o'vX u'piraylLcL ob8i gpilatov iyclrCLL r6 wpayllct. He might have used the miraculous powers inherent in His Divine nature in such a way as to compel men, without further ado, to worship Him as God. Instead of that He was willing to attain this high' dignity by the path of humiliation, suffering and death. Is not this interpretation strongly corroborated by the narrative of the Temptation ? In that mysterious experience our Lord was tempted to reach Tb CIVQL torcl ea~ in the way of &pire'LCLV, forcing men out of sheer amazement to accept His claim and exalt Him as Lord. [Perhaps the curious negative expression OOX &pWCLYI~. K.,r.k. has been suggested by a comparison with the first Adam who sought to reach 11 equality with God 11 by means of &pwc'LEELY.] It is to be noted that the increased glory which Paul and all the N.T. writers regard as pertaining to Christ after His Resurrection has only to do with His dignity, His " theocratic position," not with His essential personality. (Cf. M6n6goz, Le Picki et la Redemption, p. 164.) He has simply become IV 8VV4fL4EL, that which He already was substantially. Cf. Rom. i- 4, ro-~P(ZV, 'I'QWOZ XpLo-roZ -ro; Kvp(ov ip,7)v. Also Luke XXIV. 26.-&U* C'CLVT6V t'ICIVW7e. Instead of appearing among men in the Divine iLop+4 and thus compelling them to render Him the homage which was His due, He 11 emptied Himself " of that Divine ILop+i and took the FL. of a bondservant. The Apostle does not specify that of which He emptied Himself, as the stress is laid upon the emptying," but with ILop. 8o4kov XcLpw'v added to explain what licivwte means, we are bound to conclude that he has in view its antithesis, IA. O*oZ. (So also Myr., Hfm., Alf., Weiffenb., Hpt., Bruce, Gore, etc. Fairbairn, Christ in Mod. Theol., pp. 476-477, tries to show that Christ emptied Himself of the "physical attributes" of Deity while retaining the "ethical ". But does this lead us any nearer a solution of the mystery in the depths of the Son's personality ?)
There is more, but please, don't waste my time citing watchtower literature that deceptively attempts to prove your point, while the whole passage does quite the opposite.
Hebrews 1:1-5
I generally use the KJV out of habit of discussing things with mormons, but have at my fingertips nine other english versions, many more recent than your list. However, I resource back to the underlying Greek were necessary. To the passage also add verse 8.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5
Please note, your citation goes on " Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be The . . . represent material skipped from the TNIDNTT. However, your citation is precisely as written in Should Christianity Abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity? by Michael A. Barber. This is another canned argument. It has already been shown that canned JW arguments do not fully or accurately present the views of the various 'proof texts' used. Here is another case.
2 Peter 1:1 - There is no problem distinguishing God and Christ as two individuals because of this verse. Matthew 21:12 uses the same construction when speaking of Jesus casting out those "selling and buying." Were the same persons buying and selling? These were two distinct groups mentioned here.
Please break it out into Greek for us. Please grace us with the verse that says "selling and buying", then we will compare construction
I do not have sufficient tome to make a full reply. It takes much longer to discuss the scriptures as I have done, than simply writing a list of scriptures. I know I asked the question, but I am explaining why it has taken me a lot of time to reply. (Besides having other things that need tending to).
You have been parroting watchtower related materials, not providing original arguments from scripture. I will be surprised if you are able to go deeper than what you have already posted, but please try.
John 1:1-3 - The King James Bible says that the word was God. However other translations render the verse as “a god” or “divine.” A godlike spirit person.
Come on out and say it, the only current ‘translation’ is the New World Translation and that has been refuted over and over again. You will not find a ‘godlike spirit person’ ANYWHERE in the Greek.
____________________________________________________
See my # 479 for all the versions ...
They all say The Word WAS GOD...